A Washington importer is challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act's determination process in the Court of International Trade. Leco Supply, having found itself on the wrong side of an EAPA final administrative determination into wire hangers imported from Laos, said in a March 25 complaint that CBP's process in deciding EAPA claims denied it the opportunity to view the confidential documents that CBP relied on to make its determination, depriving the importer of its constitutional due process rights.
The Department of Justice appears to be digging in for a fight over the issue of refund relief against the thousands of Section 301 plaintiffs inundating the Court of International Trade seeking to have it declare the lists 3 and 4A Chinese tariffs unlawful. The government won’t support a stipulation in which the plaintiffs, if successful in the massive litigation, could seek refunds of all tariffs paid, regardless of the imports’ liquidation status, including whether the 12-month window on protesting individual liquidations has expired, a DOJ response filed March 26 said.
CBP incorrectly reversed its own Enforce and Protect Act determination that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, a U.S. shrimp industry group said in a complaint filed at the Court of International Trade March 23. The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC), made up of shrimp producers and wholesalers, said CBP should have stuck with its original finding that Minh Phu transshipped Indian shrimp through Vietnam, in part because the exporter did not provide enough information on its supply chain.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 15-21:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from March 15-19 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Lawyers for the roughly 3,700 Section 301 complaints inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade reached consensus on picking the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products action as the sole sample case in the massive litigation, and on seating 15 among their ranks for the plaintiffs’ steering committee, said HMTX-Jasco counsel Akin Gump in the lawyers’ “coordinated proposal” (in Pacer) Friday. Though plaintiffs “cannot guarantee 100% agreement on every issue on behalf of every single counsel,” they are “not aware of any objection to this proposal after repeated consultations and opportunities for review,” it said.
Sony didn’t respond to questions about the nature of the large-screen TVs it’s importing from China under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s 8528.72.64.60 subheading for sets with screen sizes exceeding 45 inches, one of the more standout disclosures in Sony’s Section 301 complaint Wednesday at the U.S. Court of International Trade (see 2103180054). The TVs have List 4A tariff exposure, and Sony joined the roughly 3,500 other complaints inundating the court for a finding that the List 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful and for an order refunding the duties paid.
Lawyers for the roughly 3,700 Section 301 complaints inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade reached consensus on picking the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products action as the sole sample case in the massive litigation and on seating 15 among their ranks for the plaintiffs’ steering committee, HMTX-Jasco counsel Akin Gump said in the lawyers’ “coordinated proposal” March 19. Though plaintiffs “cannot guarantee 100% agreement on every issue on behalf of every single counsel,” they are “not aware of any objection to this proposal after repeated consultations and opportunities for review,” it said.
Sony Electronics joined the massive Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade by hiring a sole practitioner, David Newman of Nyack, New York, instead of a big multinational law firm to file a complaint (in Pacer) on its behalf Wednesday arguing the List 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports are unlawful and should be refunded. Joining the suit as co-plaintiffs were Sony Latin America and Sony Interactive Entertainment, the arm of the company responsible for the PlayStation 5. Sony argues “the same cause of action” as the first-filed HMTX Industries/Jasco Products case in September, that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act by imposing tariffs that had no link to the Section 301 investigative report's finding of serious Chinese trade misbehavior. It also alleges USTR violated Administrative Procedure Act protections against rulemakings that lack transparency. An attachment to the complaint lists more than 15 dozen import categories to which Sony has List 3 or 4A exposure. Though the vast majority are for capital goods, not finished products, one standout listing is for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s 8528.72.64.60 subheading for finished TVs sourced from China on List 4A, with screen sizes exceeding 45 inches. No other categories of finished TVs from China are listed. Sony, like other TV brands playing in the premium tier, is believed to source most of its big-screen products from Mexico. Sony didn’t respond to questions Thursday.
Sony Electronics joined the massive Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade by hiring a sole practitioner, David Newman of Nyack, New York, instead of a big multinational law firm to file a complaint (in Pacer) on its behalf Wednesday arguing the List 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports are unlawful and should be refunded. Joining the suit as co-plaintiffs were Sony Latin America and Sony Interactive Entertainment, the arm of the company responsible for the PlayStation 5. Sony argues “the same cause of action” as the first-filed HMTX Industries/Jasco Products case in September, that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act by imposing tariffs that had no link to the Section 301 investigative report's finding of serious Chinese trade misbehavior. It also alleges USTR violated Administrative Procedure Act protections against rulemakings that lack transparency. An attachment to the complaint lists more than 15 dozen import categories to which Sony has List 3 or 4A exposure. Though the vast majority are for capital goods, not finished products, one standout listing is for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule’s 8528.72.64.60 subheading for finished TVs sourced from China on List 4A, with screen sizes exceeding 45 inches. No other categories of finished TVs from China are listed. Sony, like other TV brands playing in the premium tier, is believed to source most of its big-screen products from Mexico. Sony didn’t respond to questions Thursday.